LexKOCH NAVIGATION INC. versus HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B KOCH NAVIGATION INC. v. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. SEPTEMBER 7, 1989 . [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961: Enforcement of foreign award-Costs of referenc,,_Entitlement to-- Whether permissible. C The appellant company had chartered their vessel to the respon- dent for carrying oil from Arabian Gulf to India under a charter party. Disputes and differences arose between the parties and the matter was referred to a single arbitrator in London, as stipulated in the charter party. The arbitrator awarded a certain sum to be paid by the respon- D dent to the appellant, with interest. The arbitrator further awarded to the appellant the cost~ of the reference, which were to be taxed in the event of disagreement. The respondent paid only the principal sum and failed and neglected to pay interest, the appellant's cost of reference to arbitration, and the cost of the award. The appellant filed an applica- tion under the Foreign Awards (Recognition & Enforcement) Act, 1961 in the High Court of Bombay. The learned Single Judge of the High E Court directed the respondent to pay interest and costs of the award so awarded by the arbitrator and also cost of the petition. The learned Judge however rejected the ·appellant's prayer for the cost of re- ference to arbitration, and also rejected the applicant's prayer that in the alternative liberty should be reserved in respect of the said prayer. F The appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench. During the pendency of this appeal the appellant's costs of reference to arbitra- tion as awarded by the arbitrator were taxed and a taxation certificate was produced at the time of hearing of the appeal. The Division Bench held that at the time when the petition was filed, there had heen no agreement upon or reference for taxing. of such costs, it appeared that the application to have the costs taxed was made only after the appeal G was filed; and as such no order could be made directing the respondent to make payment to the appellant of the. costs so taxed. Before this Court it was urged on behalf of the respondent that there was no scope for addition to the award, and the award had to be H executed as it was, and the costs of reference had not been awarded. 70 - KOCH NAVIGATION v. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM 71 Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: (1) Foreign awards, as it manifests, are executable in this country under the provisions of the Foreign Award• (Recognition & Enforcement) Act, 1961. The Act was passed to give effect to the con- vention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitrator's award., [74F] (2) It is obvious that since the Act was calculated and designed to subserve the cause of facilitating international trade and promotion thereof by providing for speedy settlement of disputes arising in such trade through arbitration, any expression or phrase occurring therein should receive, consistent with it• literal and grammatical sense, a liberal construction. [7SB] Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v; General Electric Co. & Anr., [1985] 1 SCR 432, referred to. A B c (3) The Court agrees that the award must be executed as it D is and there is 110 scope for any addition to any award. But the award to be executed must be properly construed and given effect to. If the award is ambiguous, the court has jurisdiction to determine what it means. [7SC] ( 4) In the instant case, the award is not ambiguous. The award, E read properly, means, so far as costs of the reference are concerned, that it was an award upon certain conditions, i.e. the award stipulated that the costs of reference will be paid. The costs of such reference were, however, directed to be determined either by agreement between the parties and in case there was no agreement or disagreement, to be taxed. [7SE] F ( S) Law, justke and equity in the facts and the circumstances of this case, enjoin that the appellant should have such costs. The appel- lant has taken all po!isible. steps that could be taken in the situation contemplated by the award. The appellant has written for agreement " about the costs of reference. The respondent did not agree. The appel- G lant took steps to have the cost• taxed in London, and the costs have been taxed. [7SH; 76A] ( 6) There is no evidence of the delay or Jach es on the part of the appellant, as such, which would disentitle the appellant to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.